Talk:French ban on face covering

Inaccurate article title

Not wanting to get into a move war here. So I'll explain. The most commonly worn type of Islamic head covering is the hijab. Despite some earlier inaccuracies in this article, the hijab is most certainly not covered by the ban. So a broad article title "French ban on Islamic head coverings" is wildly inaccurate. It should either be "French ban on burqas", "French ban on full length facial veils" etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

also the current title implies that the ban only applies to Muslims. I dont think that is accurate and when this ban goes into effect nobody ( man or woman, Muslim or non muslim) will be allowed to cover their face in public in France. would prefer "French burqa ban" or "French ban on full length facial veils" for that reason. "French burqa ban" would likely be the search term readers use to find more info on this subject so that would be my first choice.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, lets call a Spade a Spade. Every one and their brother knows what the ban is about. Its like saying the Jim Crow laws were not about whites not whating to let blacks vote. The french Press is not even debating whether or not its is about muslims.BB7 (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is an issue - yes the law was more likely than not aimed at Muslim face coverings, but the text of the Bill makes no mention of "Islam" or "Islamic". The title needs to be changed for accuracy's sake. – ukexpat (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What if you want to wear a ski mask in winter? Would this be illegal?99.120.57.121 (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hijab

The London Daily Mail a world class newspaper says "This means that a measure banning full face Islamic veils, also including the niqab, taken by the National Assembly, the lower house, in July was ratified. "

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1312016/Frances-Senate-bans-women-wearing-burka-public.html#ixzz0zXOcmdE0 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1312016/Frances-Senate-bans-women-wearing-burka-public.html

Hijab. Hijab. All of those women in the picture are wearing hijabs. Not niqabs. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

oops apoliges BB7 (talk)

No worries - so now you understand why we need to move the article title as well? The hijab is the most common form of "Islamic head covering" yet is not covered by the ban. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies minunderstanding on my end. I still disagree with moving it to Burqa as more than the burqua is banned here BB7 (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"full length Islamic veils" works too :-) BB7 (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent - I thought "ban on burqas" would be a bit catchier but I think this new non-catchy title is the most accurate. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

maybe French burqa ban can be redirected here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that "face veils" or "full face veils" is the most appropriate title; whatever the technicalities, that is clearly what is intended. I don't think the picture needs to be altered. It appears that "Muslim style" covering of the rest of the body is not at issue. (OTOH, I must agree that the law is de-facto aimed specifically at Muslims, if only because no other major religion advocates (let alone requires) covering of any part of the face. And even Islam does not speak of covering any part of the male face, though among the Tuareg of the Sahara, it is the men who wear veils.)

An American perspective, fwiw: In my medium-size community, I have seen many "full body + hair" coverings - in my city informally known as "burqas" - though no face veils. I do not believe that any American state, let alone the U.S. federal government, would allow a ban on any clothing that was not "indecent" (i.e., offensive to some people for *insufficient* coverage!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.140.45 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC) oops, I hadn't meant to be "anonymous". I'm Thomas Ahlswede, from Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, USA

This kind of ban would indeed be very difficult in USA would most certainly be thrown out as unconstitutional even if congress were to pass it.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry, but The London Daily Mail is NOT a world class newspaper. it's a little englander right wing rag little removed from the tabloids. the Times, Guardian, and, at a pinch, Telegraph, would count as reliable British newspaper source, but not the Mail HieronymousCrowley (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources to incorporate

Foreign Police magazine

Title

As the issue seems to be the face, and the covering thereof, I think the title should include and reference the term "face". -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

French ban on full length Islamic veils → French ban on full length face covering — Folks, I propose that this article be moved to French ban on full length face coverings, or something similar that does not refer to "Islamic" and "veils". – ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• SupportI agree, as long as the article contains language dealing with the consensus that this is primarily if not solely aimed at Muslim women. The previous comments were correct, the bill does not refer only to Muslim women or specifically to Muslim veils. However, to ensure due weight, I think the commentary should, as it does, primarily consider this legislation aimed at Muslims.Jbower47 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• OpposeSeriously, lets call a Spade a Spade. Every one and their brother knows what the ban is about. Its like saying the Jim Crow laws were not about whites not wanting to let blacks vote. The French Press is not even debating whether or not its is about muslims veils. BB7 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment In the long run, the civil rights implications of such bans may have little to do with Islam. Whether France has installed such technology yet or not, such a ban seems most useful when a state runs video cameras in all public places and uses them to track all movements of residents. Without such a ban, an unrecognizable face defeats the system, but with it, it becomes reason for arrest. See also balaclava (clothing). I think it is very important for the article to deal with these other sorts of face coverings, not just go for the bait. Wnt (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment What is a "full-length" face veil? I support "Islamic" being nixed, because the bill doesn't mention that, but the "full-length" should be omitted as well because it doesn't mean anything. -- tariqabjotu 22:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support agree that "Islamic' and "full length" needs to go. I agree that probably nobody would be allowed to wear balaclava (clothing) in the winters in public places in France when this goes into effect.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Hyphen Whatever is decided, full-length + noun needs a hyphen. Ericoides (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Hyphen ditto e.g. French ban on full-length Islamic veils or French ban on full-length face covering. That should be uncontroversial. --RA (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, It seems a little more accurate. The ban does not necessarily refer to Islamic veils, it is just that they will fall foul of the law. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons as Weaponbb7. If it turns out that the law will be enforced against those who wear balaclavas in winter, or at nightclubs, or in blizzards, or sand storms, then perhaps the issue could be revisited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1f2 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Police Forces

I heard that police forces in N.America are very concerned about this type of dress because criminals like bank robbers could use it as a perfect disguise to gain entry sereptitiously and without much notice. Who would be suspicious? A bunch of banks getting nicked by people dressed like this would sure cause an uproar! I can't seem to find the source on the article I read about police chiefs' concerns --- hope someone here can find something. --66.222.252.20 (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In the veil debate in France, this was one of the arguments from the supporters of banning full veils in public. For security reasons. Yet they also mentioned womens' dignity, secularity in France and simple politeness/sociability. - Munin75 (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in "Response"

I read the response section, and all the responses show a view against the ban. Perhaps we could add some pro-ban responses to even it out? Jmfriesen (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno if it was there when you placed the tag, but the response from Egypt supports the ban. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It was. interesting that Muslims dont seem to agree about the appropriateness of Niqab. looks like they were banned in Egypt also but ban was overturned on constitutional grounds.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are the carnival masks now banned in France?

--MathFacts (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ninjas

What about ninja masks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.27.65 (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What about wearing a ski mask in winter?99.120.57.121 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

217.167.123.118 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)== Proposal to move the article to "French ban on the concealment of faces in public places" ==

Or something like that, I'm not a French speaker but here's the Google Translate of the relevant parts of the bill:

• Article 1er
  • Principle that "no person may, in public, wear clothing designed to conceal his face."
• Article 2
  • Definition of the concept of public space as comprising public roads, public places and places affected by a utility.
    • Definition of the four exceptions to the prohibition:
      • - Uniforms prescribed by statute or by regulation (helmets for motorcycles);
      • - Uniforms authorized to protect the anonymity of the individual (status of certain witnesses in criminal trials);
      • - Uniforms justified by medical reasons (masks in case of epidemic, respiratory masks, bandages) or professional reasons (officers law enforcement, welding, sandblasting, asbestos removal, rat control, pest of vessels);
      • - Outfits that are part of festivities (carnival costumes, Santa Claus) or artistic (film actors, circus and theater) or traditional (processions, especially religious).

I.e. the law itself isn't explicitly targeted at veils, it's targeted at any concealment of the face with a few exceptions. Although obviously veils were the target of the bill, the bill doesn't limit itself to them. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Latex fetishists

What about French rubber fetishists who are into heavy enclosure in public ? 217.167.123.118 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess they'll have to exchange that fetish for one of full frontal exhibitionism.99.120.57.121 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)